Single judge dismissed bail petition for petitioner accused of possessing commercial quantity of charas under NDPS Act, ruling he failed to discharge presumption required by Section 37 despite arguments about call details.
Bail petition dismissed; petitioner directed to file fresh petition on changed circumstances or with better particulars.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr.MP(M) No. 1100 of 2021 Reserved on: 22.6.2021 Date of Decision: 2.7.2021
Sanjeev Kumar ...Petitioner.
Versus
State of H.P. ...Respondent.
Coram:
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 No
For the petitioner: Mr. C.S. Thakur, Advocate.
For the respondent: Mr. Nand Lal Thakur Addl. Advocate General, Mr. Ram Lal Thakur Deputy Advocate General, and Mr. Rajat Chauhan Law Officer .
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE
| FIR No. | Dated | Police Station | Sections |
|---|---|---|---|
| 366/2020 | 20.12.2020 | Kullu, District Kullu | 20, 29 of NDPS Act |
| and Section 188 | |||
| and 269 of IPC. |
Anoop Chitkara, Judge.
The petitioner, incarcerating upon his arrest for possessing commercial quantity of 1 Kg 855 gram Charas has come up before this Court under Section 439 of CrPC, seeking regular bail.
(a) Bail application i.e. CNR No. HPKU01-00001-2021, titled as Sanjeev Kumar Vs. State of HP was filed before the Court of learned Special Judge-I, Kullu and the same stood dismissed on 15.1.2021.
1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2
(b) Bail application i.e. Cr.MP(M) No. 127 of 2021, titled as Sanjeev Kumar Vs. State of HP was also filed before this Court and the same stood dismissed vide order dated 4.2.2021.
(c) Thereafter bail application i.e. Cr.MP(M) No. 631 of 2021 was also filed by the same petitioner and the same was dismissed as withdrawn.
3
REASONING :
4
presence with main accused at odd hours, this Court is not satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for giving him bail as he was not guilty of such offence. However, the petitioner may file a fresh petition placing better particulars so as to discharge the burden and make this court believe that he was not guilty of such offence so as to comply with the mandate of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
5
merits of the case, nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.
Anoop Chitkara, Judge 2nd July, 2021 ( Guleria )
3 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted for possession of commercial quantity of charas where the accused has not discharged the presumption under Section 35/37 of NDPS Act.
Whether the explanation of call details alone is sufficient to overcome the rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act when presence with main accused is proved.
Whether the stand that the accused is in custody for more than 1 and a half year is a legal ground to overcome Section 37 of NDPS Act.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Satinder Kumar v. State of H.PExplained¶31
Satinder Kumar v. State of H.P Cr.MP(M) No. 391 of 2020
5 provisions across 3 enactments
Sanjeev Kumar
State of H.P.
Anoop Chitkara
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
